Download LOCAL HOMEOMORPHISMS VIA ULTRAFILTER CONVERGENCE

LOCAL HOMEOMORPHISMS VIA ULTRAFILTER
CONVERGENCE
MARIA MANUEL CLEMENTINO, DIRK HOFMANN, AND GEORGE JANELIDZE
Abstract. Using the ultrafilter-convergence description of topological spaces,
we generalize Janelidze-Sobral characterization of local homeomorphisms
between finite topological spaces, showing that local homeomorphisms are
the pullback-stable discrete fibrations.
Introduction
In this paper we complete the study of some special classes of continuous
maps using convergence (see [7, 6, 2, 3, 4]). The recent interest on this had
as starting point Janelidze-Sobral paper [6], where the authors presented characterizations of proper, perfect, open, triquotient maps and local homeomorphisms between finite topological spaces using point convergence. This motivated the study of the infinite version of these characterizations, successfully
established in [3], with the exception of local homeomorphisms. This paper fills
the remaining gap.
In [6], interpreting a finite topological space as a category via its pointconvergence description, it is proved that:
Theorem I. A continuous map between finite topological spaces
is a local homeomorphism if and only if it is a discrete fibration.
For infinite spaces, replacing point convergence by ultrafilter convergence, local
homeomorphisms turn out to be the pullback-stable discrete fibrations. Indeed,
in this paper we present an example of a discrete fibration which is not a local
homeomorphism, and we prove:
Theorem II. A continuous map between topological spaces is a
local homeomorphism if and only if it is a pullback-stable discrete
fibration.
Note that since general (infinite) topological spaces cannot be viewed as categories, what we call the discrete fibrations of topological spaces has to be
Date: May 30, 2003.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 54C10, 54A20, 54B30, 18A20, 18B30.
Key words and phrases. local homeomorphism, ultrafilter.
The authors acknowledge partial financial assistance by Centro de Matemática da Universidade de Coimbra/FCT and Unidade de Investigação e Desenvolvimento Matemática e
Aplicações da Universidade de Aveiro/FCT.
1
2
MARIA MANUEL CLEMENTINO, DIRK HOFMANN, AND GEORGE JANELIDZE
defined; however our definition (see Section 2) is a straightforward imitation of
the categorical one: just interpret arrows as convergence.
We also introduce the notion of a λ-space (where λ is a cardinal number), and
show that pullback stability comes for free whenever the domain of the given
map is a λ-space. This is important because amongst the λ-spaces we have
both Alexandrov and first countable T1-spaces, that is, we have the “strange
spaces” we generalized and the spaces that occur in classical geometry at the
same time.
1. Local homeomorphisms and open maps
We recall that a local homeomorphism is a continuous map f : X → Y which
is locally a homeomorphism; that is, each x ∈ X has an open neighbourhood
U such that f (U ) is open and the map f |U : U → f (U ) is a homeomorphism.
It is well-known that:
Proposition 1.
(1) For a continuous map f : X → Y , consider the following commutative diagram, where the square is a pullback:
X II
(A)
1X
II δf
II
II
I$
π2
X ×Y X
1X
#
/X
π1
f
% ²
f
X
²
/ Y.
The following assertions are equivalent:
(a) f is a local homeomorphism;
(b) f is open and locally injective;
(c) both f and δf are open maps.
(2) Local homeomorphisms are pullback-stable.
The following results can be found in [3]:
Theorem 1.
(1) A continuous map f : X → Y is open if and only if, for
each x ∈ X and each ultrafilter y with y → f (x) in Y , there exists an
ultrafilter x such that x → x in X and f (x) = y; we display this as
X
x _ _ _ _/ x
_
_
f
²
Y
²
y
(B)
²
/ f (x).
(2) If f : X → Y is a local homeomorphism, then the ultrafilter x in (A) is
unique.
LOCAL HOMEOMORPHISMS VIA ULTRAFILTER CONVERGENCE
3
2. Discrete fibrations
One can obviously imitate many categorical notions in topology simply by
replacing arrows=morphisms with arrows representing ultrafilter convergence.
In particular the continuous maps of topological spaces will then come up as an
imitation of functors, and then the existence and uniqueness of liftings displayed
in (B) will come up as an imitation of the discrete-fibration condition. Hence we
define a discrete fibration of topological spaces as a continuous map f : X → Y
with
(∃1 )
X
x _ _ _ _/ x
_
_
f
²
²
/ f (x),
²
y
Y
which means that, for each x ∈ X and each ultrafilter y with y → f (x) in Y ,
there exists a unique ultrafilter x such that x → x in X and f (x) = y.
The class of all discrete fibrations of topological spaces will be denoted by
H.
For each topological space X, we denote by Conv(X) the set of pairs (x, x),
where x is a point, and x an ultrafilter converging to x in X. The set Conv(X)
has a canonical, but not necessarily topological, convergence structure, giving
rise to a functor Ult studied in [3]; however we will not use that structure
here. Each continuous map f : X → Y induces a map Conv(f ) : Conv(X) →
Conv(Y ) with (x, x) 7→ (f (x), f (x)). Clearly, a continuous map f : X → Y
belongs to H if and only if the diagram
Conv(f )
/ Conv(Y )
Conv(X)
πX
πY
²
²
f
X
/Y
is a pullback in Set; here and below πX and πY are the projection maps.
Using this formulation it is easy to prove that:
Proposition 2.
(1) Let f : X → Y and g : Y → Z be continuous maps. If
g · f and g are in H, then so is f .
(2) Given a pullback diagram
W
h
²
Z
k
/X
g
²
f
/Y
in Top, such that k is an injective map, if f is in H then so is h. In
particular, H is stable under pullbacks along injective continuous maps.
4
MARIA MANUEL CLEMENTINO, DIRK HOFMANN, AND GEORGE JANELIDZE
Proof. To prove (1), consider the following commutative diagram in Set
Conv(f )
/ Conv(Y )
Conv(X)
πX
Conv(g)
/ Conv(Z)
πY
²
X
πZ
²
f
²
g
/Y
/ Z.
Since, by hypothesis, the outer diagram and the right-hand square are pullback
diagrams, also the left-hand square is a pullback diagram, and the result follows.
(2): We only need to show that, in the commutative diagram
k
/X
W
8
r
πX sss9
r
r
rrr
sss
Conv(k)
/
f
Conv(W )
Conv(X)
πW
h
Conv(h)
²
²
Z
8
πZ rrr
rrr
Conv(Z)
Conv(g)
Conv(f )
g
²
/9 Y
sss
sssπY
²
/ Conv(Y )
the maps πW : Conv(W ) → W and Conv(h) : Conv(W ) → Conv(Z) are jointly
monic. This is immediate since πX and Conv(f ) are jointly monic, because f
is in H and Conv(k) is injective (since so is k) by hypothesis.
¤
Discrete fibrations do not need to be local homeomorphisms, as the following
example shows:
Example. Let x be a non-principal ultrafilter on the set N of natural numbers
and consider N endowed with the topology {A ⊆ N | 0 ∈ A ⇒ A ∈ x}. Consider
the Sierpinski space {0, 1}, with the non-trivial open subset {1}. Let
f : N → {0, 1}
½
0 if n = 0,
n 7→
1 otherwise.
Then f is not a local homeomorphism since it is not injective on any neighbourhood of 0. However it belongs clearly to H: if n ∈ N \ {0} and y → f (n) = 1
•
•
in {0, 1}, then y =1 (=the ultrafilter generated by {1}) and so n is the unique
ultrafilter in N with image y converging to n; if n = 0, we have two possibilities:
•
•
•
0 → 0, whose unique lifting is 0 , and 1 → 0, whose unique lifting is x.
3. The characterization theorem
We consider again Diagram (A).
Theorem 2. For a continuous map f : X → Y , the following conditions are
equivalent:
(i) f is a local homeomorphism;
LOCAL HOMEOMORPHISMS VIA ULTRAFILTER CONVERGENCE
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
5
f is stably in H;
both f and π1 : X ×Y X → X belong to H;
both f and δf belong to H;
for each indiscrete space Z, f × 1Z : X × Z → Y × Z belongs to H;
both f and f × 1X 0 : X × X 0 → Y × X 0 belong to H, whenever X 0 is the
indiscrete space with the underlying set of X.
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) follows from Proposition 1. (ii) ⇒ (iii) is trivial, while to prove
(iii) ⇒ (iv) we use Proposition 2 and the equality π1 · δf = 1X . From (iv) it
follows that both f and δf are open maps, hence f is a local homeomorphism,
by Proposition 1. Therefore the first four conditions are equivalent. It is also
clear that (ii) ⇒ (v) ⇒ (vi), and so to complete the proof it suffices to show that
(vi) implies (iii). This follows from Proposition 2, observing that the left-hand
square in the diagram below is a pullback and hf, 1i is monic:
π2
/ X × X0
X ×Y X
π1
²
²
X
hf,1i
pX
f ×1X 0
/ Y × X0
&
/X
f
²
pY
/ Y.
8
f
¤
4. When local homeomorphisms and discrete fibrations coincide
The equivalence between local homeomorphisms and discrete fibrations obtained by Janelidze and Sobral in [6] for finite topological spaces can be obtained
in a more general setting that includes Alexandroff spaces and first countable
T1 -spaces. To present it, we introduce λ-spaces, for λ a cardinal number: these
are the topological spaces X such that:
(a) every neighbourhood filter has a base with cardinality at most λ;
(b) each subset of X with cardinality less than λ is closed.
The 0-spaces are the indiscrete spaces, the 1-spaces (n-spaces for each finite
cardinal n, respect.) are the Alexandroff (T1 -)spaces, while the ℵ0 -spaces are
the first countable T1 -spaces. Assuming CH, an example of an ℵ1 -space is the
line R with the cocountable topology.
Theorem 3. If X is a λ-space, then a continuous map f : X → Y is a local
homeomorphism if and only if it is a discrete fibration.
Proof. We only have to check that f : X → Y is locally injective whenever
it is a discrete fibration. In order to do that, we assume that f is not locally
6
MARIA MANUEL CLEMENTINO, DIRK HOFMANN, AND GEORGE JANELIDZE
injective, that is
∃x ∈ X : ∀U ∈ O(x) ∃a, b ∈ U : f (a) = f (b),
where O(x) denotes the set of open neighbourhoods of x. Then there are two
possibilities, which we will consider separately:
(a) We have
∀U ∈ O(x) ∃aU ∈ U \ {x} : f (aU ) = f (x).
Consider an ultrafilter a in X such that a ⊇ O(x) and {aU ; U ∈ O(x)} ∈ a.
•
•
By construction it converges to x and its image by f is f (x) . Since f (x) may
•
also be lifted by the ultrafilter b =x 6= a, the assumption of the Theorem fails.
(b) If there is a neighbourhood V of x such that f (x) 6∈ f (V \ {x}), we have
∀U ∈ O(x) ∃a, b ∈ U : a 6= b and f (a) = f (b) 6= f (x).
The result is obvious for λ = 0, and so we consider now λ 6= 0. Since each
subset of X with cardinality less than λ is closed, for every neighbourhood U
the cardinality of the set A := {{a, b} ⊆ U | b 6= a and f (a) = f (b) 6= f (x)}
S
is at least λ. Otherwise the set U \ A, which does not satisfy the condition
above, would be a neighbourhood of x.
Let {Uα ; α ∈ λ} be a neighbourhood base of x. We may choose two disjoint
injective families (aα )α∈λ and (bα )α∈λ (that is, two injective maps a, b : λ → X
with disjoint images) such that both aα and bα belong to Uα and f (aα ) =
f (bα ) 6= f (a) for each α ∈ λ. Let a be an ultrafilter converging to x and to
which {aα ; α ∈ λ} belongs. The ultrafilter b obtained by replacing in a each aα
with bα is different from a, although f (b) = f (a) and both converge to x. ¤
Remarks. (1) The part (a) of our proof does not use λ and is obviously valid
for arbitrary spaces. In fact this shows that every discrete fibration is an open
map with discrete fibres. Therefore the class of discrete fibrations, which itself
is not pullback stable, is however strictly between two pullback stable classes,
that are not too far from each other – namely of local homeomorphisms and of
open maps with discrete fibres.
(2) Is there a reasonable simultaneous generalization of the notions of a discrete
fibration for categories and for topological spaces? Most probably this question
has several good answers; a straightforward one would be just to copy both
(=any of the two) definitions to T -categories in the sense of Burroni [1]. One
could also try the far more general context of Clementino-Tholen [5].
References
[1] A. Burroni, T -categories, Cahiers Topologie Géom. Différentielle 12 (1971), 215-321.
[2] M. M. Clementino, On finite triquotient maps, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 168 (2002), 387-389.
[3] M. M. Clementino and D. Hofmann, Triquotient maps via ultrafilter convergence, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 130 (2002), 3423-3431.
LOCAL HOMEOMORPHISMS VIA ULTRAFILTER CONVERGENCE
7
[4] M. M. Clementino, D. Hofmann and W. Tholen, The convergence approach to exponentiable maps, Port. Math. 60 (2003), to appear.
[5] M. M. Clementino and W. Tholen, Metric, topology and multicategory – a common
approach, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 179 (2003), 13-47.
[6] G. Janelidze and M. Sobral, Finite preorders and topological descent I, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 175 (2002), 187-205.
[7] J. Reiterman and W. Tholen, Effective descent maps of topological spaces, Top. Appl.
57 (1994), 53-69.
Dep. de Matemática, Universidade de Coimbra, 3001-454 Coimbra, Portugal
E-mail address: [email protected]
Dep. de Matemática, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
E-mail address: [email protected]
A. Razmadze Mathematical Inst., Georgian Acad. Sci., Tbilisi, Georgia
E-mail address: [email protected]